Scalar energy
Scalar energy: * pseudo science? * Scalar field theory? In theoretical physics, has anyone ever conceived the notion of scalar energy ? I was thinking that the LHC in Switzerland might help discover it. (talk) 12:14, 30 March 2010 (UTC) :You're going to need to be more specific. An article red link isn't all that helpful. —ShadowRanger (talk| ) 12:16, 30 March 2010 (UTC) ::Especially since energy is a scalar in pretty much any formulation of physics. -- Coneslayer (talk) 12:18, 30 March 2010 (UTC) :::I don't really like this source, but I sums up what I was talking about. http://www.rense.com/general39/scalarenergy.htm (talk) 12:20, 30 March 2010 (UTC) :::::Note that at that site, they mention the World Trade Center, Iraq conspiracies, and conspiracies around Tesla (this one actually has a bit of truth to it). It's surprising they don't mention the JFK assassination and the rise of Hitler. StuRat (talk) 15:47, 30 March 2010 (UTC) ::::I don't blame you for not liking that source, as it has all the hallmarks of crackpot pseudoscience. ::::Whenever someone says they've got an extraordinary new theory, which is unbeknownst to (and is perhaps being suppressed by) mainstream science, it's possible in some theoretical sense that they're right -- science does always consider the possibility that it's wrong, and it does always have more to learn -- but it's spectacularly, ludicrously, vanishingly improbable. Electromagnetic waves aren't an energy source anyway, so to suppose that these hidden, different kind of waves could somehow provide limitless "free" energy is just, I'm sorry, nonsense. —Steve Summit (talk) 13:14, 30 March 2010 (UTC) ::::The source you cited links to this one, and a Google search yields plenty more, but they all have the same unignorable whiff of magical thinking about them. —Steve Summit (talk) 13:20, 30 March 2010 (UTC) ::::According to the feedback column of New Scientist the "scalar energy" notion is an increasingly prevalent brand of what it calls fruitloopery. Consensus on Wikipedia, for what it's worth, said pretty much the same thing: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scalar field theory (pseudoscience). However, unless I am missing something, I disagree with Steve Summit's assertion that electromagnetic waves aren't an energy source. See for example solar power. Steve - perhaps you mean that they aren't an "ultimate" energy source, in that they must have been generated by something else such as nuclear reactions within the sun, but under that interpretation kinetic energy wouldn't be an energy source in lots of real world situations either. Equisetum (talk) 14:01, 30 March 2010 (UTC) ::::::Yes, I think he meant that they carry energy, but aren't the source, similar to electricity. StuRat (talk) 15:27, 30 March 2010 (UTC) :::::: I made the point a bit too hastily, but Stu caught my meaning. I think of electromagnetic fields and waves as being a means of transmitting energy, but not of storing it, let alone being a source of it. (Although it'd probably be hard, I concede, to rigorously distinguish between a "source" and a "storage", if it came to that.) —Steve Summit (talk) 16:57, 30 March 2010 (UTC) :::::Just curious; wouldn't it be more useful to have an article on scalar energy that says it's crap rather than just not have one at all? I'm not familiar with the WP deletion policies but common sense says that having information telling you it's highly improbable leads to less confusion than no information at all. I'll read into the guidelines further and perhaps I can answer my own question. -Pete5x5 (talk) 14:47, 30 March 2010 (UTC) ::::::For very common ideas, like perpetual motion, we have an article explaining the common fallacies. Unfortunately, there is no limit to the number of incorrect theories - it's hard to have an article on all of them. We reserve our articles for only those most important pseudoscientific theories - the ones which are notable. Nimur (talk) 15:07, 30 March 2010 (UTC) :This seems to be another name for zero-point energy. See Zero-point_energy#Proposed_free_energy_devices for a discussion of why this is impossible. StuRat (talk) 15:33, 30 March 2010 (UTC) ::So that web page links to http://Cheniere.org - which will be instantly familiar to old hands here at the science ref desk. Not that we've necessarily seen that page before. You don't even have to read it. It has lots of Centered text In lots of different fonts' AND many different sizes ::For some reason, this style of web page is completely unique and almost universal amongst pseudo-science nut-jobs. I have no idea why - but it's almost 100% reliably so. SteveBaker (talk) 00:47, 31 March 2010 (UTC) :::Still, the guy shows remarkable restraint in not using a bunch of different colors. APL (talk) 16:45, 31 March 2010 (UTC) ::::He must be both nuts and color-blind. :-) StuRat (talk) 01:04, 1 April 2010 (UTC) Si osou * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Scalar_field_theory_(pseudoscience)